Thought they had been taken elsewhere the other week?No. How can you attempt to say what I hope?Notice the contrast in what I posted. I hoped the very old train would be used to pioneer what can be used in new trains, as opposed to more old trains. Lots more 70s trains is not something I can see as a particularly good thing.
Now that is just my opinion and you may feel differently.
Sat doing jack all at Bletchley.
Little is known beyond the fact that GWR apparently purchased the remaining coaches from the administrators. Hence why we find ourselves in the speculative discussion subforum.
My understanding is that it is very much the technology on trial, rather than the trains. The 230s just happened to be a convenient test bed because they were cheap, they were available and they were built by the same people who'd developed the tech.
Bromley North is already electrified, Rose Hill has far more value as an infill. The others might well do battery quite well though.
Good point. Can't think of many other short/self-contained lines.
Romford Upminster is already electrified and 710s are perfectly suitable.
I wouldn't expect a rush introduction of more 230s for all the Cornish branch lines. The battery technology will be integrated into a new stock order at some point.
I think the Marston Vale trio are still at Bletchley so no proof of any future for them to see. Only thing of note is a while back they seemed to have had their engine rafts removed. Furthermore I think the Greenford trial unit (230001) is still at Bletchley but I maybe wrong about that.
Who now actually owns 230001?
Great Western Railway
Apparently GWR bought the intellectual rights (my words) for the fast charging technology, 230001 (which iirc was already planned to go to the Greenford Branch), 230003-5 (the now unused Marston Vale units), Employment of some of the Vivarail staff (8 istr ?) and 67 x D78 vehicles (probably scrap value so not a risk beyond storage). GWR have probably taken most of the whole Vivarail empire on - minus the TfW units (230006-10) with their support and maybe the two units in the USA (230002 & 230011). I think the Isle of Wight 484s and support were wholly owned by SWR from quite a while back. That is roughly my recollection and understanding.
Thanks for that. I too was wondering what would happen to 230002 and 230011, the two units in the USA.
I am not even aware who owns the two units in the USA (230002 & 230011) and if anyone is trying to continue operating them.
Why would a level crossing be a problem? Something specific to that location such as boats on trailers?
Have to raise the wires and re-evaluate the crossing risk. Easier to not touch it and let sleeping dogs lie.
If you mean the bridge over the Thames as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_branch_line#/media/File:Henley_branch_line.png, then I believe the plan was to have have pantograph poles to hold the line both before the bridge and after the bridge. As has been done on other 25KV lines, elsewhere were they have crossed water. I believe the same was done where the GWML crosses the River Loddon.
No, I meant the level crossing at the north end of Shiplake station. It serves plenty of riverside homes that have waterfront access, as well as being close to lots of trees and currently only an AHB crossing.
There was plans to use the 230s as a commuter link in the US. The RDC is still in operation but might need a subsidy to get going?.
www.dailylocal.com
St Ives would need a 5 car train and is there enough layover time for charging. Falmouth would need a minimum 3 car, same charging problem.
The 230s have part longitudinal seating and standing for 9-12 mins isn't a problem so they could definelty get away with 3-4 cars and there is time for charging given the length of the line.
Has there been any historical reports of where standing passengers at the time of a rail accident fared worse than those who were seated?
That's not in itself a problem; If GWR wanted to, there is enough carriages for (quite a lot) of 3-car sets, and you could combine a 3-car with a 2-car to make a 5-car set where necessary.
It was cited as a potential factor in the Canon Street crash of 1991. However it was conceded that the impact was relatively misunderstood. Interestingly a more direct link was found in an accident of 1914 at Charing Cross, where a passenger was killed leaning out of a window, and it was theorised he would have likely survived if he'd been sitting down.
The road is too narrow for high sided vehicles, which I think are not allowed along the road crossing the line anyway. I personally do not see it only different to crossing's on any of the main lines or other routes where there is overhead electrification and a crossing is on the route. Although, I would suggest if overhead electrification takes place, then full barriers if possible are put in place rather than half barriers.
